Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

From:

Mathias Dahl

Subject:

Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

Date:

Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:28:17 +0100

User-agent:

Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (windows-nt)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
>> rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient". It all
>> depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.
>
> I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
> keys. They are always somewhere on the fringes. So, habits aside,
> the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
> is an objective fact. Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
> way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
> negligible.
OK, the distance from the home row is shorter, but I still don't think
you can conclude that it is more efficient. For example, C-f require
"two" (or one, or one and a half if you want) keypresses while the
arrow keys require only single keypresses.
Also, can you seriously say that, when doing complicated cursor
movements (imagine navigating around in a crossword or minesweeper
game or similar "grid2), that C-f, C-b, C-n and C-p allows for quicker
movement? If so, I think you are an alien... :)
I agree that for casual cursor movement *while typing text*, it is
faster to use C-f et al, but I still don't like the "more efficient"
statement as I do not find it to be true. Also, the mnemonics (f =
foward, b = back, n = nex, p = previous) suggest that the commands was
put on those keys not for quick navigation bur for easy learning, in a
time where the arrows were not present on all keyboards.
I use both, depending on the situation.